- From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:36:23 +0200
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, uri@w3.org
- Cc: djz@corp.webtv.net, Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>, "'Paul Hoffman / IMC'" <phoffman@imc.org>
Thanks for looking at this again, Larry!
Yes, chunks of it comes from my "things to think about" memo.... that was
my only real claim to authorship on this one!
I feel that there is still value in keeping an Informational resource about
URI registration - there is much that is common (or uncommon?) knowledge
about URIs and registration, that shouldn't be part of the ruleset (because
there are sometimes good reasons to override them), but should definitely
be thought about before designing/registering an URI scheme.
It also allows keeping more of the dry humor that I sometimes appreciate in
the RFC series, such as the "UR* = flamewar" comment... if you have
compelling arguments for making it a BCP resource, I am listening....
Note - the original document was deliberately limited to URL schemes - this
is not an accident; stuff like the HTTP proxy and "can all objects be
referenced" mostly makes sense when it's an URL; the comment from
draft-ietf-url-process-00 that got deleted from the "uninteresting
questions" question:
>2.5.1 Is it an URL, an URN or something else?
>
> This classification has proved interesting in theory, but not
> terribly useful when evaluating schemes.
is a prime candidate for reinstatement if we change it to be a document
about URI registration.....
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/1997Jan/0000.html> is one URL for
this I-D...)
Harald
Received on Monday, 30 August 2004 07:37:07 UTC